Local  Government:  at  Homb 
and  Abroad. 

BY 

ROBERT  P.  PORTER,  ESQ.. 

CHICAGO. 


Article  No.  One 


FROM  THE 


PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


\ 


PRICE,  FIVE  CENTS. 


THE 


PRINCETON  REVIEW 

For  JULY,  1879. 

LABOR  AND  WAGES  IN  ENGLAND.  Prof.  THOROLD  ROGERS,  LL.D.,  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford. 

THE  AIM  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  MODERN  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM 

Rev.  Dr.  E.  A.  WASHBURN,  New  York. 

NEMESIS  IN  THE  COURT-ROOM.  FRANCIS  WHARTON,  LL.D.,  Cambridge. 

REASON,  CONSCIENCE,  AND  AUTHORITY.  Prebendary  IRONS,  D.D., 
F.R.H.S.,  St.  Paul’s,  London. 

THE  ORGAN  OF  MIND.  Prof.  DAVID  FERRIER,  Kings  College,  London. 

MUSIC  AND  WORSHIP.  President  POTTER,  Union  College. 

CHRIST  AND  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMMORTALITY.  Rev.  GEORGE 
MATHESON,  D.D.,  Scotland. 

LOCAL  GOVERNMENT:  AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD.  ROBERT  P.  POR- 
TER, Chicago. 

PHILOSOPHY  AND  APOLOGETICS.  Prof.  CHARLES  W.  SHIELDS,  Princeton 
College. 


The  Review  is  published  bimonthly,  at  two  dollars  a year , or  thirty-five  cents 
a number,  postage  paid.  The  proprietor  respectfully  solicits  your  subscription, 
and  desires  vour  influence  in  extending  its  circulation. 

The  ooject  is  to  present,  to  the  largest  number  of  intelligent  readers,  articles 
entirely  original,  of  the  highest  order  and  timeliness,  from  the  best  minds  of  this 
country  and  Europe,  treating  of  the  most  interesting  phases  of  thought  in  The- 
ology,  Philosophy,  Politics,  Science,  Literature,  and  Art. 

Remittances  should  be  addressed  to  the 

PRINCETON  REVIEW, 
NEW  YORK 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD. 


THE  true  position  of  our  own  local  government  may  be 
seen  more  clearly  by  comparing  it  with  the  systems  of 
other  nations.  Brodrick  1 informs  us  that  the  origin  of  local 
government  in  England  must  be  sought  in  the  primitive  com- 
munities of  our  Saxon  forefathers.  The  German  nations,  as 
described  by  Caesar  and  Tacitus,  were  nothing  but  associations 
of  self-governed  villages,  or  larger  districts,  occupied  by  sepa- 
rate families  or  clans,  among  whom  there  was  not  even  the 
shadow  of  a common  national  allegiance,  except  for  purposes 
of  war.  Such  was  the  organization  of  the  Saxons  when  they 
first  settled  in  England,  and  continued  for  centuries  to  be  the 
essential  organization  of  the  English  people.  In  Scotland  the 
most  ancient  form  of  local  jurisdiction  of  which  any  trace 
remains  was  the  baronial  ; and  the  power  of  the  barons  grew 
till  it  alarmed  the  crown  which  had  created  it.  There  sprung 
up,  in  the  course  of  time,  communities  which  engaged  in  man- 
ufactures and  merchandise,  and  the  crown  sought  in  these  some 
counterpoise  to  the  great  barons.  It  gave  charters  to  these 
communities  of  the  lands  in  their  neighborhood,  and  made 
them  perpetual  corporations,  with  power  to  choose  councils  and 
magistrates,  and  with  special  privileges  of  trade.  These, 
after  a long  term  of  abuse,  grew  into  veritable  republics,  with 
magistrates  chosen  by  the  people,  practically  independent,  in 
their  office,  of  the  crown,  and  their  acts  subject  only  to  revision 
for  error  or  illegality  in  the  courts  of  law.  These  baronial 
courts  continued  in  full  vigor  till  the  great  rebellion  of  1745, 
when  their  jurisdiction  was  so  limited  by  Parliament  that  it 
1 “ Local  Government  in  England.”  By  Hon.  George  C.  Brodrick. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD . 


173 


gradually  decayed,  and  has  now  nearly  died  out.  Local  gov- 
ernment in  Ireland  has  but  little  distinct  history  from  that  of 
England  ; and  the  local  authorities  may  be  divided  into  five 
classes — those  connected  with  Poor  Law  Unions,  counties, 
towns,  and  harbors,  respectively,  with  a class  of  minor  authori- 
ties. The  county  authorities  include  baronial  presentment  ses- 
sions, grand  juries,  governors  of  lunatic  asylums,  trustees  of 
inland  navigation,  and  arterial  drainage  authorities. 

In  France  there  are  no  traditions  to  be  considered  as  in 
England  and  Scotland.  The  old  system  of  local  government 
was  entirely  altered  at  the  end  of  the  last  century.  In  France 
the  department  is  divided  into  arrondissements — the  arrondisse- 
ments  into  cantons,  and  the  cantons  into  communes.  The  can- 
ton is  only  a judicial  division  ; but  the  department  has  its  Par- 
liament, the  Conseil  General,  presided  over  by  the  Prefet  ; 
the  arrondissement  has  its  Conseil  d’Arrondissement,  presided 
over  by  the  Sous  Prefet  ; and  the  commune  its  Conseil  Munic- 
ipal, presided  over  by  the  Mayor.  The  number  of  the  depart- 
ments is  86  ; each  of  them  including  from  two  to  six  arrondisse- 
ments, from  17  to  62  cantons,  and  from  72  to  904  communes. 
The  number  of  inhabitants,  according  to  the  census  of  1871, 
varies  from  118,898  to  2,220,060.  There  are  362  arrondisse- 
ments, 2865  cantons,  and  35,989  communes.  The  commune  is 
the  administrative  unit  in  France,  and  corresponds  to  our 
township.  France  suffers  by  so  much  being  done  through 
these  municipal  councils,  in  very  much'  the  same  way  as  we 
suffer  ; for  there,  as  in  the  United  States,  the  city  councils  are 
not  infrequently  composed  of  an  inferior  class  of  men.  But 
there  is  no  clashing  of  areas  of  taxation,  as  in  England.  Each 
forms  part  of  a harmonious  whole.  The  departmental  council 
fixes  the  departmental  taxes,  which  are  divided  between  the 
arrondissements,  and  by  them  subdivided  among  the  com- 
munes. The  arrondissement  settles  any  district  taxation,  and 
partitions  it  between  the  communes.  The  commune  votes  its 
own  taxes  for  municipal  objects,  and  collects  them  with  the 
communal  share  of  the  departmental  and  arrondissement  taxa- 
tion. Complete  reports  of  the  expenditures  of  the  communes 
of  France  are  rarely  published,  and  are  only  accessible  for  the 
years  1836,  1862,  1868,  and  1871  : 


'74 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


1836.  1862. 

Francs.  Francs. 

1868. 

Francs. 

1871. 

Francs. 

Receipts  : 

Ordinary 

100,848,990  291,899,431 

24,461,073  I49»5I7,559 

| 

83,830,926  256,954,948 

33,962  204  193,283,419 

309,488,605 

130,178,005 

276,343,9x5 

167,518,655 

313,169,350 

226,416,910 

276,187,190 

244,314,970 

Extraordinary 

Expenditures  : 

Ordinary 

Extraordinary 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  expenditures  for  the  year  1871 
aggregated  520,502,160  francs.1  Deducting  from  these  num- 
bers the  sums  expended  in  consequence  of  the  war,  and  the 
total  expenditure  for  the  year  was  401,378,075  francs.  The 
latest  available  statistics  show  that  the  local  taxation  of  France 
is  now,  in  round  numbers,  a sum  exceeding  800,000,000  of 
francs  for  the  whole  country,  including  the  Ddpartment  de  la 
Seine.  The  proportion  between  the  various  sources  of  income 
may  be  nearly  estimated  at  500,000,000  from  direct  taxation, 
200,000,000  from  indirect  taxation,  and  100,000,000  from  tolls, 
dutiaB,  and  miscellaneous  revenues. 

De  Laveleye  2 has  traced  in  the  institutions  which  govern 
the  provinces  and  communes  of  Belgium  and  Holland  the 
double  impress  of  the  German  and  the  Latin  spirit.  Whatever 
of  autonomy  they  possess  he  thinks  is  owing  to  the  free  cus- 
toms of  the  Germanic  tribes  who  peopled  the  provinces  of  the 
Low  Countries.  Whatever  of  centralization  they  possess  is  due 
to  the  French  conquerors  of  1792,  who,  both  under  the  Repub- 
lic and  under  the  Empire,  took  as  their  ideal  of  government  a 
complete  uniformity  imposed  upon  every  locality  by  the  cen- 
tral power.  Their  institutions  preserve  to  this  day  much  of 
their  ancient  character,  and  on  the  borders  of  the  Lake  of 
Lucerne  can  be  found  all  the  features  of  the  primitive  democ- 
racy transmitted  without  interruption  from  times  the  most  an- 
cient.3 But  as  riches  accumulated  in  the  hands  of  the  few, 

1 This  does  not  include  the  commune  of  the  Department  de  la  Seine.  The 
budget  of  the  Ville  de  Paris  is  about  200,000,000  francs  a year. 

2 “The  Provincial  and  Communal  Institutions  of  Belgium  and  Holland.” 
By  M.  Emile  De  Laveleye. 

3 This  idea  has  been  recently  developed  in  De  Laveleye’s  “ Property,  and 
its  Primitive  Forms.” 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD . 


175 


democratic  institutions  disappeared  little  by  little.  The  inhab- 
itants having  nothing  in  the  way  of  common  property  to  man- 
age, had  less  reason  for  assembling  together.  They  got  tired 
of  administering  justice.  They  neglected  to  attend  the  public 
assemblies.  In  brief,  communal  liberties  died,  feudalism  was 
established.  Precisely  the  same  evolution  took  place  in  Eng- 
land, where  the  manor  absorbed  the  commune  so  that  the  very 
name  has  disappeared,  and  there  remains  nothing  but  the 
vestry.  De  Laveleye  thinks  nothing  is  more  dramatic  or  more 
instructive  than  the  picture  of  the  progress  of  democracy  in  the 
great  communes  of  the  Low  Countries,  and  nowhere  can  it  be 
better  studied  than  in  the  history  of  Liege.  The  conquest  of 
popular  liberties  was  there  made  in  a more  regular  manner  than 
elsewhere,  because  the  sovereign  authority  exercised  by  an 
elective  bishop  was  less  powerful  than  when  exercised  by 
hereditary  dynasties.  The  local  government  in  Belgium  and 
Holland  has  its  foundation  in  the  commune,  though  the  com- 
munes no  longer  enjoy,  as  in  the  Middle  Ages,  the  attributes  of 
sovereignty  ; but  they  are  ruled  by  elective  bodies  which  in 
matters  of  administration  and  police  have  very  considerable 
powers. 

By  no  means  the  least  important  reform  accomplished  by  the 
present  Emperor  of  Russia  has  been  the  entire  change  which 
was  effected  in  local  government  in  1864.  Mr.  Ashton  W. 
Dilke,  who  has  resided  much  in  Russia,  and  has  acquired  no 
slight  personal  knowledge  of  its  people,  institutions,  and  lan- 
guage, informs  us  that  before  the  ukase  of  1864  there  existed 
in  Russia  only  three  popular  elected  assemblies  with  deliber- 
ative powers.  Of  these,  one,  the  lowest,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  most  widely  spread  and  important  of  all,  was  the  village 
assembly  ( mir , mirkskaya  skhodka ),  which,  though  not  mate- 
rially altered,  received  extensive  powers  in  1864.  The  village 
commune  (mir)  is  the  unit  of  Russian  local  government.  A 
Russian  peasant  lives  for  his  commune  and  not  for  himself  ; to 
him  life  as  a unit  is  almost  unintelligible.  The  patriarchal 
system,  a remnant  probably  of  the  time  when  the  Slavonic  race 
was  still  a pastoral  one,  has  been  handed  down  untouched — 
nay,  strengthened  even  by  some  local  circumstances.  The 
town  meeting  is  very  frequently  called  as  the  people  are  leav- 


1 76 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW 


ing  church,  and  always  takes  place  in  the  open  air  in  the  middle 
of  the  village  street.  After  the  meeting,  the  crowd  generally 
adjourn  to  the  village  tavern,  once  more  to  discuss  the  business 
which  has  been  settled.  Formalities  there  are  none  ; the  cre- 
dentials of  voters  are  not  looked  into  too  closely.  Nominally 
every  head  of  a household  is  entitled  to  a vote.  It  is  said  that 
the  assembly  seldom  comes  to  an  actual  vote  on  a subject. 
Russian  peasants  hardly  ever  decide  by  majorities  ; but  if  two 
parties  disagree  in  a matter,  it  is  talked  over  and  over  again, 
and  the  meeting  is  adjourned.  At  the  next  meeting  a compro- 
mise is  generally  arrived  at. 

The  only  real  and  living  piece  of  self-government  in  Prussia 
is  the  municipal  government,  which  had  its  origin  in  Stein's 
great  law  in  1808.  Morier  says  of  it  : 

It  has,  after  nearly  70  years  of  a fruitful  existence,  driven  its  roots  deep 
into  the  soil  and  satisfactorily  solved  the  great  problem  of  local  government, 
viz.,  the  combining  the  administration  of  affairs  which  are  partly  private, 
partly  public,  in  the  same  hands  ; it  has  established  itself  as  the  type  which 
all  future  attempts  at  creating  self-governing  institutions  must  follow. 

This  comparison,  brief  and  imperfect  as  it  is,  shows  that  in 
England  alone  the  Anglo-Saxon  idea  of  freedom  took  perma- 
nent root.  Professor  Gneist,  one  of  the  most  profound  politi- 
cal writers,  in  his  various  works  1 has  sketched  with  great  skill 
the  relations  borne  by  the  local  institutions  to  the  general  insti- 
tutions of  the  country  in  Germany  and  England.  He  exposes 
the  continental  error  of  the  eighteenth  century,  which  supposed 
that  the  secret  of  England’s  political  liberty  lay  in  her  parlia- 
mentary institutions.  Morier,  another  good  authority,  ob- 
served this  when  he  said  the  great  continental  recipe  for  politi- 
cal liberty  became  the  creation  of  parliamentary  institutions. 
Fix  upon  a census  ; divide  the  country  into  electoral  districts  ; 
elect  representatives  ; find  some  big  town-hall  for  them  to  sit 
in,  and  the  thing  is  done  ; all  the  rest  will  come  of  itself.  The 
Parliament  will  beget  self-government  ; self-government  will 
beget  liberty.  It  is  this  erroneous  idea  that  Professor  Gneist 
so  effectually  refuted  and  showed  the  reverse  to  be  the  case. 
He  held  that  it  was  because  the  English  were  free  in  the  old 

1 “Self-Government  in  England;”  “Communal  Institutions  of  England;” 
“The  Administration  of  the  Constitution  of  England.” 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD. 


177 


Teutonic,  positive,  and  concrete  sense  of  the  word  freedom , 
and  not  in  the  abstract  negative  sense,  of  the  word  liberte , that 
England  was  self-governed,  and  that  it  was  because  they  were 
self-governed  in  their  local  affairs  that  Parliament  grew  up,  in 
which  they  were  able  to  govern  themselves  in  regard  to  imperial 
affairs  ; in  a word,  that  in  the  received  continental  doctrinaire 
view,  cause  and  effect  had  been  reversed. 

Let  us  now  glance  briefly  at  the  history  of  local  government 
in  England,  from  which  our  own  system  of  local  government 
had  its  origin,  and  in  which  as  far  back  as  the  Conquest  lay  the 
hidden  germ  of  our  present  political  liberty.  It  may  be  traced 
by  the  light  of  charters  and  other  documents  still  extant. 
London,  as  is  well  known,  was  chartered,  though  not  incorpo- 
rated, by  the  Conqueror  himself.  Henry  I.  granted  its  citizens 
the  liberty  of  electing  their  own  sheriff.  The  mayoralty  of 
London  is  traced  back  to  the  beginning  of  Richard  I/s  reign  ; 
but  it  was  from  John  that  London  first  received  the  royal  per- 
mission to  choose  a Lord  Mayor  annually.  Other  towns 
slowly  gained  their  civic  independence.  After  the  reign  of 
Richard  I.  and  John,  borough  charters  became  numerous. 
Local  freedom  was  encouraged  by  The  Tudors,  and  propagated 
by  means  of  new  charters  ; and  the  entire  local  government 
was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Mayor  and  Common  Council. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  in  this  diversity  of  municipal 
constitutions,  franchises,  customs,  and  sentiments,  consisted 
one  of  the  most  potent  securities  for  liberty.  Had  London 
been  one  symmetrical  whole  instead  of  being  overspread  with  a 
net-work  of  public  and  private  jurisdictions  in  the  days  of 
Magna  Charta,  it  would  have  been  far  more  submissive.  Close 
students  of  the  Middle  Ages  admit  that  the  necessity  of  con- 
sulting local  sentiment,  and  governing  through  local  agency, 
made  itself  felt  in  every  branch  of  civil  administration.  Louis 
XI.  succeeded  in  debauching  the  ministers  of  Edward  IV.,  but 
he  could  not  debauch  the  members  sent  up  to  Parliament  from 
the  country  ; Pepys  records  the  same  facts  in  the  evil  days  of 
Charles  II.  But  the  local  institutions  that  had  nursed  our  lib- 
erties through  the  most  trying  times,  could  not  withstand  the 
political  blight  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the  decline  in  the 
old-fashioned  public  spirit  took  the  very  soul  from  municipal 
12 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW, 


178 

life  of  olden  times,  and  the  Reform  Parliament  of  1832  opened 
a new  order  of  things  in  Great  Britain. 

Brodrick  mentions  the  curious  and  instructive  fact  that 
while  the  primitive  ideal  of  self-government  had  thus  become 
obscured,  both  in  English  counties  and  in  English  boroughs,  it 
not  only  survived,  but  acquired  a fresh  vitality,  in  the  colonies 
of  New  England.  The  New  England  “towns,”  which  we 
shall  presently  consider,  he  says  were  nothing  but  a reproduc- 
tion of  Anglo-Saxon  “ townships,”  with  a larger  average  area, 
and  with  better  defined  corporate  identity.  Their  resident  in- 
habitants, or  ” freemen,”  like  the  free  suitors  of  the  old  town- 
moot,  constituted  the  electoral  body,  which  admitted  new 
members,  chose  all  local  town-officers,  such  as  ” constables,” 
” tithing-men,”  and  “ surveyors  of  highways,”  regulated  all 
local  taxation,  and  sent  deputies  to  the  “ General  Courts,” 
which  corresponded  in  most  respects  with  county  courts  before 
the  Conquest.  Like  the  townships  of  Old  England,  the  New 
England  towns  were  held  responsible  for  their  own  roads, 
bridges,  and  police  ; they  were  also  held  responsible  for  their 
own  poor  relief  and  education.  Old  usages  and  even  old 
names  were  carefully  preserved  ; there  were  grand  juries  and 
petty  juries,  militia  regiments  and  district  train  bands,  and 
even  whipping-posts  and  stocks,  as  there  were  in  England 
under  the  rule  of  Cromwell.  The  system  thus  evolved  from 
the  results  of  English  experience,  modified,  as  I shall  endeavor 
to  show,  by  the  exigencies  of  a vast  and  new  country,  retains  its 
characteristic  outlines  to  this  day  in  every  State  of  the  Ameri- 
can Union.  It  has  been  truthfully  remarked  that  the  study  of 
it  may  serve  to  show  how  little  the  working  of  political  ma- 
chinery depends  on  its  outward  form,  and  how  much  on  its  in- 
ward spirit. 

Mr.  S.  A.  Galpin  1 has  roughly  classed  the  minor  political 
subdivisions  of  the  United  States  for  local  purposes  under 
three  general  types  or  systems,  viz.,  the  “town”  system,  the 
“ county”  system,  and  the  “ compromise”  system.  It  will  be 
necessary  for  our  present  purpose  to  indicate  briefly  the  general 
characteristics  of  these  types.  Of  the  three  systems  mentioned 

1 “ The  Minor  Political  Divisions- of  the  United  States.”  By  S.  A.  Galpin, 
LL.B.,  Hartford,  Conn.  Statistical  Atlas  of  U.  S. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD. 


*79 


above,  the  two  which  differ  most  widely  from  each  other  are 
the  “ town”  system  of  New  England  and  the  “ county”  sys- 
tem of  the  South.  Both  of  these  were  firmly  rooted  in  their 
respective  sections  before  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and 
passed  through  the  successive  transfers  of  sovereignty  growing 
out  of  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  without  any  material  change. 
Of  course  the  county  exists  in  the  “ town”  States,  their  title 
being  simply  the  result  of  the  prominence  given  to  the  “ town” 
in  their  interior  political  organization.  So  strong  has  been  the 
impress  of  English  tradition  throughout  the  United  States, 
that,  with  one  exception,  only  the  political  division  next  below 
the  State  is  known  as  the  county..  The  only  exception  is 
found  in  Louisiana,  which  is  divided  into  “parishes.”  But 
the  powers  these  “ parishes”  possess  are  substantially  the  same 
as  the  counties  of  other  States.  The  “ town”  system  pure  and 
simple  prevails  only  in  the  six  New  England  States — Connec- 
ticut, Maine,  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island, 
and  Vermont,  The  area  of  these  States  is  8348  square  miles  ; 
population,  3,487,924  ; containing  one  thirtieth  of  the  area  and 
one  eleventh  of  the  population  of  the  United  States.  In  these 
States  the  “ town”  is  the  important  political  division  of  the 
State.  It  is  a body  corporate  and  politic,  deriving  its  charter 
from  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  and  generally  entitled  to  an 
independent  representation  in  the  lower  branch  of  the  Legisla-- 
ture.  It  has  power  to  elect  its  own  officers,  to  manage  in  its 
own  way  its  own  roads,  schools,  local  police,  and  other  domes- 
tic concerns,  and  collects  through  its  own  officers  not  only  its 
self-imposed  taxes  for  local  purposes,  but  also  those  levied  by 
the  Legislature  for  the  support  of  the  State,  or  for  the  support 
of  county  officers  and  to  cover  their  limited  expenditures. 
Where  so  much  power  is  vested  in  the  town,  any  larger  subdi- 
vision of  the  State  must  necessarily  have  but  a limited  function. 
The  county  in  the  States  above  mentioned  thus  becomes  a 
judicial,  not  a political,  subdivision  of  the  State. 

The  “ county”  system  is  now  found  in  seventeen  States, 
viz.,  Alabama,  Arkansas,  California,  Delaware,  Florida,  Geor- 
gia, Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Maryland,  Mississippi,  Missouri, 
Nebraska,  Nevada,  Oregon,  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and 
Texas.  These  “ county”  States  have  an  area  of  1,243,295 


i8o 


THE  PRINCE  TON  PE  VIE  W. 


square  miles,  with  a population  of  11,955,731 — about  two- 
thirds  of  the  area  and  more  than  one  third  of  the  population 
of  ail  the  States.  Under  the  “ county”  system  the  conditions 
of  the  ” town”  system  are  reversed — the  outward  form  remains 
the  same,  but  the  inward  spirit  is  greatly  changed.  The  names 
of  the  greater  and  lesser  subdivisions  of  the  State  remain  un- 
changed, but  the  powers  and  position  of  these  subdivisions  are 
in  no  case  or  degree  the  same.  The  town  or  township  is  but 
the  skeleton  of  the  New  England  town,  while  the  county  is 
clothed  with  all  the  political  power.  It  derives  its  charter  from 
the  Legislature,  and  is  responsible  to  the  State  authorities  for 
its  share  of  the  taxation.  A comparison  of  the  States  of 
Rhode  Island  and  South  Carolina  will  show  the  reader  at  once 
the  radical  difference  between  these  two  systems.  The  area  of 
Rhode  Island,  as  given  by  the  General  Land  Office,  is  1306 
square  miles,  less  than  double  the  average  area  of  the  political 
unit  under  the  county  system,  yet  it  has  within  its  limits  36 
towns  and  cities,  each  being  an  independent  political  organiza- 
tion, while  South  Carolina,  with  an  area  of  34,000  square  miles, 
has  only  31  organized  counties,  which  are  in  no  respect  the 
superiors  of  the  Rhode  Island  towns  in  political  power.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  population  of  the  Rhode  Island  town 
averages  6038,  or,  excluding  cities,  4000  inhabitants,  the  area 
being  about  36  square  miles  ; that  of  the  South  Carolina 
county  22,731  inhabitants,  distributed  over  an  average  area  of 
nearly  1100  square  miles.  Under  these  conditions  of  settle- 
ment, differing  so  widely,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  different 
are  the  methods  of  administration. 

Lastly  comes  the  system  called  the  ” compromise  system,” 
which,  having  its  home  in  States  lying  between  those  already 
named,  is  itself  the  result  of  a fusion  of  the  systems  prevailing 
on  either  side  of  it.  This  third  general  type  has  been  adopted 
in  the  organization  of  the  States  of  the  North-west,  and  now 
prevails  in  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Michigan,  Minne- 
sota, New  Jersey,  New  York,  North  Carolina,  Ohio,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Virginia,  West  Virginia,  and  Wisconsin.  These  fourteen 
States  contain  672,824  square  miles,  and  22,671,986  inhabit- 
ants, their  area  being  about  one  third  of  that  of  the  States  of 
the  Union,  their  population  nearly  two  thirds.  In  this  system 
the  political  power,  which  in  New  England  is  lodged  with  the 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD.  181 

.town , and  at  the  South  with  the  county , is  divided  between  the 
two  organizations.  The  county  is  the  creation  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  is  the  political  unit.  It  is,  however,  subdivided  into 
towns  or  townships,  which  possess  considerable  political  rights, 
and  thus  becomes  a miniature  of  a State  as  subdivided  for  local 
purposes  into  its  counties.  The  townships  are  laid  out  by  the 
county  officers,1  and  have  power  to  elect  their  own  officers, 
to  lay  and  repair  their  highways,  to  determine  in  township 
meeting  the  amount  of  taxes  to  be  raised  for  school  and  other 
local  purposes,  and  submit  an  estimate  of  the  same  to  the 
county  authorities  for  approval,  and,  in  general,  to  act  upon 
all  local  matters  in  much  the  same  way  as  the  New  England 
town,  subject,  however,  to  the  supervisory  of  the  county.  The 
tabulated  statement  below  is  compiled  from  official  sources, 
and  shows  at  a glance  the  various  systems  of  local  government 
in  the  United  States. 

Table  showing  the  Number  and  Average  Area  of  the  Towns,  Town- 
ships, or  other  Political  Divisions  of  the  Counties  of  the  United 
States,  so  far  as  the  same  can  be  ascertained  from  the  Returns  of 
the  Ninth  Census,  together  with  their  Average  Population. 


The  “ Town” 
System. 

Total 

Number. 

Aver- 

age 

Area. 

Average 

Popula- 

tion. 

The  “ County” 
System. 

Total 

Number. 

Aver- 

age 

Area. 

Average 

Popula- 

tion. 

Connecticut. . 

164 

29 

3.277 

Tennessee.. . . 

1,282 

36 

982 

Maine  (i)  (2).. 

412 

36 

1.552 

Texas 

705 

226 

1,161 

Massachus’tts 

338 

23 

4.318 

New  Hamp- 

The system. 

6,961 

79 

1,301 

shire  (2) 

23I 

39 

1,378 

T TT  T7*  G U If 

Rhode  Island. 

36 

36 

6,038 

1 riH. 

Vermont  (2). . 

243 

42 

1,360 

promise”  Sys* 

. TEM. 

The  system. 

1,424 

34 

2,450 

Illinois  (7) 

i,545 

36 

1,644 

Indiana 

993 

34 

1,693 

The  “Coun- 

Iowa (8) 

1,187 

45 

1,006 

ty”  System. 

Kansas  (9) 

353 

104 

1,032 

Min’sota  (10). 

662 

79 

664 

Arkansas.  . . . 

659 

79 

735 

New  Jersey. . 

228 

37 

3,974 

Delaware. . . . 

31 

68 

3,139 

New  York . . . 

942 

50 

4,653 

Georgia  (3). . . 

1,122 

52 

1,055 

N.  Carolina. . 

809 

63 

1,324 

Kentucky.. . . 

845 

45 

1,563 

Ohio 

1,357 

29 

1,964 

Louisiana  (4). 

444 

93 

1,637 

Pennsylvania. 

L452 

32 

2,426 

Maryland .... 

193 

52  • 

4,046 

Virginia  (8). .. 

435 

88 

2,817 

Mississippi.. . 

325 

145 

2,547 

WestVirginia. 

313 

73 

1,412 

Missouri  (5). . 

940 

70 

1,831 

Wisconsin... . 

780 

69 

1,352 

South  Caro- 

lina (6) 

415 

S2 

1,700 

The  system. 

ii,9I5 

59 

1,923 

1 We  note  one  exception,  New  Jersey,  the  Legislature  reserving  this  right 
-in  that  State. 


1 82 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


Recapitulation. 


Total 

Number. 

Average 

Area. 

Average 

Population. 

The  “Town”  System 

1,424 

34 

2,450 

The  “ County”  System 

6,961 

79 

1,301 

The  “ Compromise”  System 

11,9*5 

59 

1,923 

20,300 

69 

1,695 

(1)  The  average  area  is  estimated.  (2)  Only  organized  towns  included  in 
computations.  (3)  Militia  districts  of  twenty  counties  estimated.  (4)  Wards 
of  four  parishes  estimated.  (5)  Townships  of  one  county  estimated.  (6)  Town- 
ships of  three  counties  estimated.  Since  1870  all  townships  in  this  State  have 
been  abolished.  (7)  Townships  of  the  twenty-six  unorganized  counties 
estimated  from  the  returns  of  precincts  or  land  survey  townships  of  those 
counties.  (8)  Townships  of  two  couhties  estimated.  (9)  Townships  of  twelve 
counties  estimated.  (10)  Townships  of  nineteen  counties  estimated. 

In  attempting  to  examine  the  badly-kept  accounts  of  up- 
wards of  20,000  minor  political  divisions  of  a vast  country,  one 
is  met  with  many  and  serious  difficulties.  We  cannot  expect  to 
find  the  uniform  order  and  method  which  prevails  in  France,, 
alike  in  all  the  municipal  budgets,  from  the  largest  town  to  the 
humblest  commune.  The  Americans,  as  De  Tocqueville  has 
shown,  can  be  very  justly  reproached  for  the  sort  of  confusion 
which  exists  in  the  accounts  of  the  expenditure  in  the  town- 
ships and  cities.  Another  writer  of  talent,  in  the  compari- 
son which  he  has  drawn  between  the  finances  of  France  and 
those  of  the  United  States,  says,  “ When  I see  the  communes 
of  France,  with  their  excellent  system  of  accounts,  plunged  in 
the  grossest  ignorance  of  their  true  interests,  and  abandoned  to 
so  incorrigible  an  apathy  that  they  seem  to  vegetate  rather 
than  to  live  ; when,  on  the  other  hand,  I observe  the  activity, 
the  information,  and  the  spirit  of  enterprise  which  keeps  soci- 
ety in  perpetual  labor  in  those  American  townships  whose 
budgets  are  drawn  up  with  small  method  and  with  still  less 
uniformity,  I am  struck  by  the  spectacle  ; for  to  my  mind  the 
end  of  a good  government  is  to  ensure  the  welfare  of  a people, 
and  not  to  establish  order  and  regularity  in  the  midst  of  its 
misery  and  its  distress.”  It  will  be  well  to  bear  in  mind  these 
words  in  this  attempt  to  unravel  some  of  the  evidences  of  local 
misgovernment  in  the  United  States.  It  is  my  present  pur- 
pose, now  that  the  reader  has  been  made  acquainted  with  some 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD.  183 

of  the  difficulties  attending  such  an  investigation,  to  first  call 
attention  to  the  debts  of  the  cities  and  counties  of  the  United 
States — those  mortgages  of  property  that  weigh  so  heavily 
upon  taxpayers.  It  may  be  useful  to  consider  their  rise  and 
progress  in  the  cities  where  they  exist,  and  their  pressure  upon 
the  populations  ; to  compare  their  relative  amounts  ; and  to 
add  up,  when  correct  figures  can  be  obtained,  their  vast  totals  ; 
so  that  we  may  form  some  idea  of  the  aggregate  burden  as 
well  as  of  their  separate  effect  on  the  cities  that  are  bowed 
down  under  the  double  yoke  of  debt  and  taxation.  The  cen- 
sus reports  afford  very  little  assistance  in  ascertaining  the  real 
local  indebtedness  of  the  United  States.  In  1870  the  total  in- 
debtedness of  the  United  States  is  given  as  follows  . State 
debts,  $352,866,698  ; county  debts,  $187,555,540;  town  and 
city  debts,  $328,244,520;  total,  $868,676,758.  Leaving  out 
the  State  debts,  there  remains  $515,810,060,  which  is  put 
down  in  1870  as  the  total  county,  town,  and  city  debt  of  the 
country.  Feeling  satisfied,  in  1876,  that  local  indebtedness 
and  taxation  had  augmented  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  other 
two  elements — value  of  property  and  population — with  regard 
to  which  it  should  maintain  a certain  relation,  I instituted  an 
inquiry,  with  a view  of  finding  out  the  facts.  Letters  were 
sent  to  the  comptrollers  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  of  the  princi- 
pal cities  of  the  United  States,  selected  not  only  for  their  size 
and  importance,  but  to  geographically  represent  the  entire 
country.  The  facts  sought  after  were  the  amount  of  the  debt, 
the  assessed  valuation,  annual  taxation,  and  population  in  1866 
and  1876.  One  hundred  and  thirty  responded,  and  from  these 
answers  a tabulated  statement  was  compiled,  which,  as  far  as  it 
went,  formed  at  that  time  the  most  recent  statistics  of  the 
kind  attainable.  The  aggregate  footings  of  the  four  elements  of 
debt,  valuation,  taxation,  and  population,  in  the  hundred  and 
thirty  cities  which  reported,  are  as  follows  : 


1876. 

1866. 

Municipal  debt  of  130  cities 

$644,378,663 

$6,175,082,158 

$112,711,275 

8,576,249 

$221,312,009 

$3,451,619,381 

$64,060,098 

5.9I9.9I4 

Assessed  value  of  property  of  same 

Annual  taxation  of  same 

Population  of  same 

184 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


The  aggregate  municipal  indebtedness  of  these  cities,  as  will 
be  seen,  was  in  1876  over  ten  per  cent  of  the  assessed  value  of 
property,  whereas  in  1866  it  was  only  six  per  cent,  showing  an 
increase  of  indebtedness  of  four  per  cent  of  the  valuation  of 
property.  It  will  also  be  seen  that  debt  increased  upward  of 
$420,000,000  in  the  decennial  period  ending  1876,  a yearly  in- 
crease of  $42,000,000.  The  percentage  of  increase  is  about  as 
follows  : Debt,  200  per  cent  ; taxation,  83  per  cent  ; valuation, 
75  per  cent  ; and  population  only  33  per  cent.  Population 
and  valuation  of  property  have  by  no  means  kept  pace  with 
debt.  Another  fact  brought  out  by  this  investigation  was  that 
if  the  census  report  of  1870,  giving  $515,810,060  as  the  total 
local  debt  of  the  United  States,  was  correct,  then  the  increase 
from  that  year  to  the  close  of  1876  must  have  been  enormous, 
for  incontrovertible  figures  showed  that  the  municipal  debt  of 
one  hundred  and  thirty  cities,  representing  a population  of 
only  8,576,249,  exceeded  by  $128,568,603  the  county,  town, 
and  city  indebtedness  of  the  entire  country  in  1870  ; or,  still 
more  appalling,  that  in  six  years  the  indebtedness  of  these  cities 
had  exceeded  by  $316,134,143  the  bonded  and  floating  indebt- 
edness of  all  the  towns  and  cities  in  the  United  States.  I pon- 
dered over  these  figures  some  time  before  I ventured  to  make 
them  public.  There  could  be  no  mistake  about  the  calcula- 
tion, as  the  debt  of  1876  came  direct  from  the  financial  depart- 
ment of  the  respective  cities,  and  the  long  column  of  figures 
were  added  up  and  fully  verified.  In  1875  and  1876  there  was 
a very  general  halt  in  the  reckless  extravagance  in  municipal 
affairs.  The  New  York  commission  appointed  by  Governor 
Tilden  to  devise  a plan  for  the  government  of  cities  published 
their  report  ; and  though  but  little  heed  was  taken  of  it,  the 
mere  publication  of  the  startling  facts  was  not  without  its 
effect.  Pennsylvania  followed,  and  though  the  commission  ap- 
pointed by  this  State  did  not  even  take  the  trouble  to  collate 
statistics  of  its  local  indebtedness,  the  report  served  to  call 
public  attention  to  the  threatening  danger.  Among  the  good 
results  of  this  very  general  discussion  of  the  subject  of  the 
growth  of  local  indebtedness  was  the  passage,  by  several 
States,  of  bills  compelling  the  county,  township,  or  city  officers 
to  make  out  annually,  and  forward  to  the  State  Auditor,  a 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD . 185 

report  of  the  outstanding  indebtedness.  One  or  two  States 
had  deemed  it  of  sufficient  importance  to  collect  these  statistics 
before  the  general  agitation  of  municipal  reform  which  fol- 
lowed the  overthrow  of  Tweed  in  New  York,  but  in  all  other 
States  no  complete  record  had  ever  been  kept.  The  advan- 
tages of  these  new  laws  are  now  beginning  to  be  understood,  and 
from  the  different  auditors'  reports  of  1879  I have  succeeded  in 
obtaining  a complete  report  of  the  existing  local  indebtedness 
(with  one  exception),  at  the  close  of  the  year  1878,  of  eleven 
States  of  the  Union  : 


Table  showing  the  Aggregate  Local  Debi  of  Eleven  States  in  1870 

and  in  1878. 


State. 

Total  Local  Debt, 
1878. 

Total  Local  Debt, 
1870. 1 

New  York  (1) 

$244,079,859 

89,601,156 

51,811,691 

41,205,840 

9.931.158 

5,272,230 

13,473.197 

35,343,155 

17,151,327 

26,130,351 

12,289,564 

$127,399,090 

40,940,657 

37,300,932 

12,509,910 

3,651,475 

2,436,795 

4,848,976 

29,043,865 

9,813,006 

15,209,212 

3,025,142 

Massachusetts  (2) 

Illinois  (3) 

Ohio  (4) 

Wisconsin  (5) 

Minnesota  (6) 

Kansas  (7) 

Missouri  (8) 

Connecticut  (9) 

Georgia  (10^ 

Rhode  Island  (11) 

Total 

$546,289,528 

$286,179,060 

Debt,  then,  in  these  eleven  States  has  almost  doubled,  but 
the  following  table  shows  that  the  value  of  property  has  in- 
creased at  no  such  ratio  : 

1 The  figures  in  this  column  have  been  obtained  by  adding  together  the 
reports  of  the  county,  town,  and  city  debts,  as  given  in  the  census  of  1870.  It 
includes  floating  and  bonded  debt.  (1)  New  York  makes  no  return  of  local 
indebtedness,  so  the  figures  were  taken  from  the  census  report  of  1875,  and  are 
undoubtedly  correct.  (2)  Tax  Commissioners’  Report,  January,  1879,  p.  161. 
(3)  Auditor’s  Report  for  1878,  p.  223.  (4)  Auditor’s  Report,  1878,  p.  12.  (5) 

Secretary  State’s  Report  for  1878,  p.  146.  (6)  Auditor’s  Report,  1878,  p.  137. 

(7)  Auditor’s  Report  for  1878,  p.  253.  (8)  The  returns  of  county,  township,  and 
city  indebtedness  of  Missouri  may  be  found  in  the  Missouri  State  Almanac  for 
1878,  p.  73.  The  figures  as  given  were  not  even  footed  up,  a work  I performed 
myself.  (9)  Comptroller’s  Report  for  1878,  p.  25.  (10)  Comptroller’s  Report 

for  1878,  p.  22.  (n)  Rhode  Island  Manual  for  1878,  p.  191. 


i86 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


State. 

Total  Assessed  Valua- 
tion of  Property,  1878. 1 

Total  Assessed  Value 
of  Property,  1870.2 

New  Y ork 

$2,755,740,318 

1,568,988,210 

1,201,123,110 

1,574,645.765 

423,596,290 

220,930,629 

137,826,643 

614,726,225 

344,406,977 

235,659,530 

256,052,818 

$1,967,001,185 

1,591,983,112 

482,899,515 

1,167,731,697 

333,209,838 

84U35,332 

92,125,861 

556,129,969 

425,433,237 

227  2IQ.  ^ IQ 

Massachusetts 

Illinois 

Ohio 

Wisconsin 

Minnesota 

Kansas 

Missouri 

Connecticut 

Georgia 

Rhode  Island 

244,278,854 

Total 

$9,333,696,515 

! $7,172,148,179 

The  above  statement  indicates  a better  condition  of  affairs 
than  did  the  investigation  into  the  financial  condition  of  the 
hundred  and  thirty  cities.  One  advantage  in  the  latter  investi- 
gation is  that  reliance  can  be  placed  in  the  figures — especially 
those  for  1878.  Debt  has  increased  almost  a hundred  per  cent 
in  the  eight  years,  while  the  assessed  valuation  of  property  has 
only  risen  from  seven  to  nine  billions.  In  some  States  the 
assessed  valuation  has  actually  decreased — as,  for  instance, 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.  In  the  former  the  local  debt 
has  doubled,  in  the  latter  it  has  gone  from  nine  to  seventeen 
millions.  A comparison  of  the  aggregate  debts  of  the  hundred 
and  thirty  cities  exclusively  with  the  returns  of  the  total  local 
indebtedness  of  the  eleven  States  brings  fully  to  view  the  fact 
that  the  danger  lies  exclusively  in  the  city  and  not  in  the  county 
and  township  debts.  The  debts  of  the  hundred  and  thirty  cities 
jumped  from  $221,312,009,  in  1866,  to  $644,378,663,  in  1876. 
On  the  other  hand,  by  adding  in  county  and  township  debts  the 
increase  is  from  $286, 179,060  to  $548,789, 528— the  one  at  a 
rate  of  200  per  cent,  the  other  at  less  than  100  per  cent.  In 
short,  the  bulk  of  the  debts  are  municipal.  The  debt  of 
twenty  cities  in  Pennsylvania,  a State  that  gives  no  complete 
returns,  aggregates  $87,329,180;  nine  cities  in  New  Jersey, 
$36,502,722  ; two  cities  in  Maryland,  $34,000,000  ; five  cities 
in  Louisiana,  $20,000,000,  and  five  cities  in  Kentucky, 

1 The  assessed  valuation  of  these  States  for  1878  has  been  taken  from  the 
last  report  of  the  State  Auditors  of  the  respective  States. 

2 From  United  States  census  of  1870. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD.  187 

$12,000,000.  But  when  to  these  great  debts  are  added  the 
township  and  the  county  debts,  the  average  per  capita  to  the 
population  is  brought  down,  and  the  grand  aggregate,  though 
serious  enough,  loses  some  of  its  startling  characteristics.  I 
have  made  a careful  estimate  of  the  total  local  indebtedness  of 
the  United  States,  based  on  the  returns  received  by  the  State 
Auditors,  and  such  returns  as  I have  been  able  to  obtain,  my- 
self, from  States  where  no  regular  reports  are  made.  Accord- 
ing to  this  calculation  the  total  local  debt  of  the  country  at  the 
close  of  the  year  1878  was  $1,051,106,112,  exclusive  of  the 
debts  of  Territories.  If  this  calculation  be  approximately  cor- 
rect it  will  be  seen  that  the  eleven  States  given  in  the  table  on 
page  14,  representing  a population  of  about  16,500,000,  owe 
the  largest  proportion  of  the  local  debt.  In  eight  years  the 
debt  has  increased  about  half  a billion  dollars,  while,  as  has 
been  shown,  in  some  States  the  assessed  valuation  of  property 
has  decreased.  The  imperfect  and  variable  revenue  laws  may 
have  much  to  do  with  the  latter  result,  but  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  reports  of  1870,  so  it  is  fair  to  make  the  comparison. 
Added  to  this  it  has  been  given  out  at  Washington,  in  a semi- 
official manner,  by  those  presumably  well  informed  in  such 
matters,  that  the  next  Federal  census  will  reveal  a condition  of 
things  not  flattering  to  our  national  vanity.  Statements  based 
upon  the  most  recent  returns  of  the  assessed  valuation  of  the  dif- 
ferent States  have  been  printed  in  the  leading  newspapers  of 
the  country,  showing  an  actual  decrease  in  the  aggregate  wealth 
of  the  United  States  during  the  last  decade.  Of  course  these 
are  but  estimates,  and  the  figures  showing  the  total  assessed 
value  of  property  of  eleven  States,  on  page  15,  do  not  warrant 
such  statements,  still  it  is  more  than  probable  that  the  total  in- 
crease in  the  real  value  of  property  will  be  small  when  compared 
with  that  of  1860-70.  The  wiping  out  of  millions  of  worthless 
bonds,  the  decline  in  stocks,  and  the  enormous  shrinkage  in  real 
property  will  have  a decided  tendency  to  lower  the  value  of 
property  in  1880. 

Of  the  separate  effect  of  these  debts  so  much  has  been  said 
and  written  that  it  seems  hardly  necessary  to  more  than  allude 
in  passing  to  one  of  the  most  recent  and  painful  illustrations  of 
the  evils  arising  from  the  rapid  growth  of  municipal  debt.  The 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


188 


shocking  condition  of  affairs  in  some  of  the  cities  of  New  Jersey 
formed  the  chief  topic  in  the  last  annual  message  of  the  Gover- 
nor of  that  State.  The  following  tabulated  statements  obtained 
from  official  sources,  and  which  may  be  regarded  as  authentic, 
will  show  at  a glance  that  repudiation  or  bankruptcy  alone  can 
save  the  property  of  the  tax-payers  of  those  unfortunate  cities 
from  confiscation  : 


Total  Debt. 

Population. 
Census,  1875. 

Debt  per 
Capita. 

Expense  per 
Capita. 

Paterson 

$1,374,000 

38,814 

$35  39 

$8  36 

Newark 

8,824,455 

123,310 

7i  56 

8 64 

Jersey  City 

14,217,435 

109,227 

130  16 

16  78 

Hoboken 

I,IIO,o65 

24,766 

44  82 

5 77 

Rahway 

1,690.000 

6,947 

243  27 

23  36 

Elizabeth 

5,808,500 

25,923 

224  06 

14  89 

Trenton 

879.567 

25,031 

35  13 

5 99 

Camden 

1,130,200 

33,852 

33  38 

6 24 

New  Brunswick 

1,468,500 

16,660 

88  14 

10  17 

$36,502,722 

404,530 

The  annual  amount  of  interest  paid  by  these  nine  cities  on 
their  debt  amounts  to  $2,138,856,  while  the  total  annual  ex- 
penses for  carrying  on  the  local  government  only  amounts  to  $2,- 
307,368,  or  $166,512  more  than  the  interest  on  the  debt.  The 
tremendous  burden  under  which  the  tax-payers  of  these  nine 
cities  are  bowed  down  can  more  fully  be  understood  by  a glance 
at  the  following  table,  which  I have  compiled  from  the  abstract 
of  ratables  reported  in  1878,  and  which  shows  the  assessed  value 
of  the  property  side  by  side  with  the  debt  : 


Newark . 
Paterson 


Jersey  City. 
Hoboken. . 


Rahway 

Elizabeth 

Trenton 

Camden 

New  Brunswick 


Total 

Tax  Rate. 

Amount  Property 
Taxable. 

Debt. 

$19  80 

$84,704,000 

$8,824,455 

22  50 

19,150,861 

1,374,000 

23  60 

60,404,281 

14,217,435 

18  57 

15,278,573 

1,110,065 

29  61 

3,093,275 

1,690,000 

35  60 

I3,579,650 

5,808,500 

15  00 

14,503,252 

879,567 

23  00 

11,773,815 

1,130,200 

29  00 

5,658,000 

1,468,500 

$228,145,707 

$36,502,722 

LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  LIOME  AND  ABROAD.  189. 

The  town  of  Rahway,  a town  of  6500  population,  and  with 
property  assessed  at  $3,093,275,  has  a debt  of  $1,690,000,  or 
of  $243.27  per  capita  of  its  inhabitants,  and  which  exceeds,  by 
thousands  of  dollars,  half  the  assessed  value  of  all  the  property 
within  the  city.  The  value  of  the  property  in  Elizabeth  is 
$1 3, 579>650,  and  its  debt  almost  $6,000,000,  or  very  nearly  half 
the  value  of  its  property.  There  are  many  other  cities  in  this 
country  struggling  under  burdens  almost  as  heavy  for  the  tax- 
payers to  sustain  as  those  given  above.  It  is  not  the  intention 
of  this  article  to  continue  further  the  examination  of  the  sepa- 
rate effect  of  these  debts,  but  rather  to  ascertain,  if  possible, 
what  has  been  done  and  what  can  yet  be  done  to  lighten  the 
taxation  which  with  the  present  imperfect  revenue  systems 
often  falls  heaviest  in  the  poorest  localities  and  lightest  in  the 
richest. 

Before  venturing  to  suggest  a remedy  for  this  condition  of 
affairs,  it  may  be  well  to  pass  in  brief  review  the  propositions 
made  by  the  distinguished  commissions  of  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania,  whose  elaborate  investigations  in  this  direction 
were  mentioned  at  the  beginning  of  the  article.  The  New  York 
commission  says  the  .only  remedy  is  that;  every  city  should  have 
a responsible  executive  head  elected  by  the  people — heads  of 
the  department  answerable  to  him,  and  removable  for  cause. 
Debt  must  be  regulated  by  those  who  have  to  pay  the  taxes. 
A board  of  finance,  elected  by  tax-payers  and  rent-payers,  to 
have  full  control,  jointly  with  the  Mayor,  of  the  financial  affairs 
of  the  city.  Property  holders  to  have  something  to  say  about 
improvements  chargeable  to  their  estates.  The  Legislature  of 
any  State  to  be  deprived  of  the  power  to  impose  burdens  upon 
the  tax-payers  of  cities  for  purely  local  affairs,  and  above  all  that 
local  affairs  be  separated  as  far  as  possible  from  State  and 
national  politics.  In  these  changes,  and  in  nothing  short  of 
them,  could  Mr.  Evarts  and  his  eminent  associates  see  anything 
like  a rational  and  business-like  management  of  the  affairs  of 
our  large  cities.1 

But  the  equally  eminent  gentlemen  who  composed  the  Penn- 


1 Report  of  the  Commission  to  Devise  a Plan  for  the  Government  of  Cities 
in  the  State  of  New  York,  1877. 


9° 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


sylvania  commission1  differed  with  the  New  York  commission 
in  regard  to  the  property  qualification  for  electors.  The  Penn- 
sylvania commission  say  this  proposition  attracted  their  care- 
ful attention  ; and  while  they  were  prepared  to  admit  the  force 
of  many  of  the  arguments  in  its  favor,  and  that,  perhaps,  in  a 
city  like  New  York  it  might  prove  effective,  yet  they  were 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that  in  Pennsylvania  no  important  re- 
sults could  be  expected  from  requiring  such  a qualification. 
The  proposition  of  the  New  York  commission  has  been  fully 
discussed  by  the  press  of  the  country,  and  has  a great  many 
advocates  ; on  the  other  hand,  the  limited  number  printed  of 
the  Pennsylvania  report  has  almost  entirely  cut  off  the  discus- 
sion that  such  an  elaborate  investigation  deserved.  The  com- 
mission show  that  the  city  of  Philadelphia  contained  in  August, 
1876,  143,936  dwellings.  It  is  estimated  that  5000  have  been 
built  since  that  time,  so  that,  in  round  numbers,  Philadelphia 
now  contains  150,000  dwellings.  The  number  of  votes  cast  at 
the  last  municipal  election  was  127,520,  and  it  is  not  claimed 
that  the  city  contains  more  than  135,000  voters.  It  will  thus 
be  seen  that  the  great  bulk  of  voters  are  either  owners  of  houses 
•or  tenants  paying  rent.  Hundreds  of  blocks  of  comfortable 
houses,  renting  from  $12.50  to  $20  per  month,  are  scattered 
throughout  the  city.  These  are  mainly  occupied  by  the  intel- 
ligent class  of  mechanics  and  operatives  in  manufacturing  and 
•other  establishments.  The  provision  recommended  by  the  New 
York  commission,  requiring  the  payment  of  an  annual  rental  of 
$250  as  a qualification  for  voting,  would,  if  adopted  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, exclude  this  large  and  reputable  class  of  citizens,  while 
it  would  not  exclude  the  tenants  of  low  grog-shops  and  other 
disreputable  establishments,  who,  in  most  cases,  pay  a higher 
rent.  This  is  not  the  only  point  on  which  the  Pennsylvania 
commission  disagrees  with  that  of  New  York.  From  a careful 
investigation  they  are  led  to  believe  that  the  undue  accumula- 
tion of  debt  in  most  of  the  cities  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
has  been  the  result  of  a desire  for  speculation  on  the  part  of 
owners  of  property  themselves.  Large  tracts  of  land  outside 

1 Report  of  the  Commission  to  Devise  a Plan  for  the  Government  of  Cities 
;in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  1878. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD.  19 1 

the  built-up  portions  of  the  cities  have  been  purchased,  com- 
binations made  by  men  of  wealth,  an  councils  besieged  until 
they  have  been  driven  into  making  appropriations  to  open  and 
improve  streets  and  avenues,  largely  in  advance  of  the  real 
necessities  of  the  city.  In  many  of  these  cases,  the  commission 
truthfully  remarks,  owners  of  property  need  more  protection 
against  themselves  than  against  the  non-property-holding  class. 
It  is  due  the  municipal  authorities  that  in  some  cases  the  largest 
debts  have  been  contracted,  not  by  their  authority,  but  under 
the  provisions  of  special  acts  of  Assembly,  appointing  commis- 
sioners to  open  streets,  park  commissions,  building  commis- 
sions, and  so  on.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  an  adequate  pro- 
tection against  municipal  debt  cannot  be  found  in  a property 
or  rental  qualification.  In  the  opinion  of  the  Pennsylvania 
commission  nothing  short  of  absolutely  forbidding  cities  to  bor- 
row money  can  effect  any  permanent  good  in  this  direction. 
They  also  proposed  an  elaborate  scheme  for  divorcing  the  city 
councils  from  all  executive  functions,  believing  the  great  vice 
of  the  present  system  is  the  practical  consolidation  of  legislative 
and  executive  powers  in  committees  of  city  councils. 

While  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  have  been  adding  to  the 
literature  on  the  evils  of  municipal  debts,  Massachusetts  has  set 
about  their  payment  in  a manner  that  will  show  a material  re- 
duction in  the  aggregate  burden  another  year.  From  a com- 
parison of  the  tables  in  the  Tax  Commissioner’s  report  for  1879 
it  appears  that  203  towns  have  diminished  their  net  debt  during 
the  year  1878,  and  only  sixty-five  towns  have  increased  it,  and 
twenty  have  neither  increased  nor  diminished.  Sixty-three 
towns  have  no  debt  this  year,  against  fifty-four  which  were  in  a 
like  situation  last  year. 

The  idea  is  constantly  gaining  ground  that  at  least  a partial 
remedy  for  the  evil  of  local  indebtedness  maybe  sought  for  and 
obtained  in  constitutional  limitations.  In  view  of  this  nearly 
all  the  recent  State  constitutions  have  inserted  clauses  looking 
to  the  limitation  of  local  debts.  New  York,  by  the  amendment 
of  1874,  prohibits  the  loan  of  the  credit  of  the  State  absolutely 
The  power  to  contract  debt  is  limited  : (a)  to  meeting  casual 
deficiencies  in  the  revenue,  not  to  exceed  at  one  time  $1,000,- 
000  ; ( b ) to  meeting  the  contingencies  of  war  ; (c)  “ to  some 


192 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


single  work  or  object’ ’ authorized  by  law  and  distinctly  speci- 
fied, in  which  case  the  proper  tax  shall  be  levied  to  pay  the  debt 
within  eighteen  years,  provided  that  such  law,  on  its  final  pas- 
sage, be  voted  upon  by  the  popular  vote,  when  no  other  prop- 
osition of  law  or  of  the  constitution  is  pending  popular  action.. 
Subdivisions  of  the  State  are  forbidden  to  appropriate  money* 
incur  indebtedness,  or  lend  their  credit  in  favor  of  any  individ- 
ual, association,  or  corporation,  except  to  provide  for  the  poor 
according  to  the  general  law.  Pennsylvania,  in  like  manner* 
limits  the  State  debt  for  casual  purposes  to  $1,000,000,  and  does; 
not  admit  other  purposes  for  which  debt  can  be  contracted  at  all, 
except  those  of  war  and  to  pay  existing  debt.  The  State  or 
municipal  credit  cannot  be  loaned  for  any  purpose  ; the  debt  of 
municipal  subdivisions  shall  never  exceed  seven  per  cent  of  the 
valuation  ; new  debt  ofthe  amount  of  two  per  cent  shall  not  be  in- 
curred without  a popular  vote.  The  State  shall  not  assume  muni- 
cipal debts,  but  their  payments  shall  be  provided  for  by  municipal 
taxation.  Ohio,  West  Virginia,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Missouri, 
Minnesota,  Nevada,  Alabama,  Florida,  Arkansas,  Georgia, 
Mississippi,  and  Texas  all  strictly  limit  the  borrowing  power  of 
the  State,  without  even  a recourse  to  the  popular  sanction  for 
an  increase  ; the  same  States  prohibit  the  loan  of  municipal 
credit.  In  Mississippi  and  Nebraska  the  power  of  the  munici- 
pality to  contract  debt  is  based  upon  the  popular  vote.  In  New 
Hampshire  the  power  of  the  municipality  is  restricted.  Colo- 
rado, Illinois,  New  Jersey,  and  North  Carolina  all  limit  the 
State  debt  and  have  strict  prohibitions  upon  municipalities. 
California  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  Legislature  to  limit  munici- 
pal indebtedness. 

Reading  over  the  annual  messages  of  thirty-eight  governors 
produces  a curious  effect  on  the  mind.  Though  alike  in  form 
and  arrangement,  the  views  are  as  varied  as  the  colors  of  the 
covers.  Though  as  a whole  monotonous,  here  and  there  may  be 
found  a scrap  of  wisdom,  and  now  and  then  a fact  of  deep  in- 
terest. One  prominent  feature  in  all  these  messages  is  the  ap- 
parent lack  of  intercourse  between  the  executives  of  the  differ- 
ent States.  Some  governors  recommend  laws  and  measures 
that  have  been  tried  and  proved  utter  failures  in  sister  States. 
Many  of  the  messages  contain  paragraphs,  and  in  some  pages 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD.  193 

are  devoted  to  the  subject  of  local  reform,  but  there  cannot  be 
found  in  one  a decided  proposition  looking  toward  a remedy  of 
the  evil  so  bitterly  complained  of.  It  is  pleasing,  however,  to 
observe  that  several  governors  recommend  that  measures  be 
immediately  taken  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  the  local  debt  of 
their  respective  States.  Some  governors  take  a gloomy  view  of 
the  future  of  American  local  government.  For  example,  the 
Governor  of  Pennsylvania  says  : “ It  is  apparent  to  all  that, 
under  the  present  system,  the  bankruptcy  of  our  larger  cities  is 
only  a question  of  time.”  In  this  gloomy  pre-eminence  Penn- 
sylvania is  not  alone.  One  day  later  Governor  Robinson,  of 
New  York,  said  : “ The  people  of  this  State  have  played  with 
debt,  and  courted  taxation,  as  if  for  pastime.  Many  towns 
almost  buried  themselves  with  bonds,  issued  for  railroads  which 
have  never  been  built,  and  covered  their  farms  with  mortgages 
for  which  they  have  received  no  consideration.  Now  that  the 
illusion  is  gone,  they  are  deploring  the  misfortunes  in  which  it 
has  involved  them.  Some  of  them  are  even  hinting  at  the  dis- 
honor of  repudiation.”  Governor  McClellan,  of  New  Jersey, 
in  speaking  of  the  municipal  problem  in  that  State,  says  : “ In 
some  of  our  cities  the  problem  is  very  serious  and  difficult  of 
solution,  and  demands  the  utmost  wisdom,  so  heavy  is  the  bur- 
den of  debt,  so  grievous  the  taxation.”  After  calling  attention 
to  the  local  debt  of  Illinois,  Governor  Cullom  says  that  about 
30  per  cent  of  the  $51,000,000  of  local  debt  of  that  State  repre- 
sents the  railroad  aid  debt  of  the  municipalities  of  the  State. 
The  constitution  of  the  State  now  forbids  all  counties,  cities,  or 
other  municipalities  from  making  subscriptions  to  capital  stocks 
or  donations  in  aid  of  any  railroad  or  private  corporation,  and 
further  forbids  the  incurring  of  any  indebtedness  to  an  amount, 
including  existing  indebtedness,  in  the  aggregate  exceeding 
five  per  cent  on  the  value  of  the  taxable  property  therein. 
“ These,”  the  Governor  says,  “ are  wise  and  fortunate  provi- 
sions, and  under  them  the  municipal  debt  of  the  State  is  now 
decreasing,  and  will  for  some  years  continue  to  decrease.” 
Governors  Croswell,  of  Michigan,  and  Williams,  of  Indiana, 
show  the  absolute  need  of  at  once  taking  steps  to  ascertain  the 
local  indebtedness  of  those  States.  Governor  Gear,  of  Iowa,  says 
that  it  is  “a  cause  of  general  complaint  by  the  tax-payers  of  our 
*3 


i94 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


cities  that  their  municipal  affairs  are  so  loosely  conducted, 
without  due  regard  to  their  interest/'  He  also  suggests  that  a 
commission  be  appointed  to  report  to  the  next  General  Assem- 
bly “ the  propriety  of  placing  the  cities  and  towns  of  the  State 
under  some  more  simple,  uniform,  and  economical  system  of 
municipal  government  than  we  now  have.” 

Year  by  year  the  question  of  reform  in  local  government  is 
augmented  in  importance.  Already  the  demand  for  laborers  in 
this  field  has  met  with  a response  from  earnest  and  able  men,  in 
all  parts  of  the  country.  How  they  differ  from  each  other  in 
their  methods  has  been  shown.  Secretary  Evarts,  in  New 
York,  proposing  to  stop  the  flood-gates  of  corruption  by  a prop- 
erty qualification  ; the  Pennsylvania  commission  by  divorcing 
the  legislative  and  executive  powers  of  the  cities  ; Governor 
Cullom,  in  Illinois,  by  constitutional  amendments  ; Francis 
Parkman  pointing  out  the  failure  of  universal  suffrage,  and  W. 
R.  Martin  showing  the  importance  of  cities  as  units  in  our  pol- 
ity, are  all  laborers  toiling  in  the  same  vineyard.  Each  has  his 
especial  medicine  for  the  malady,  but  the  trouble  is  no  one  pre- 
scription will  effect  a cure.  It  needs  time.  It  needs  patience  ; 
and,  above  all,  the  working  out  of  natural  laws.  New  experi- 
ments and  tinkering  only  aggravate  the  disease.  Instead  of 
looking  for  new  schemes  in  the  future,  the  proper  way  is  to 
look  back  into  the  past — back,  if  need  be,  to  where  we  started, 
into  the  primitive  communities  of  our  Saxon  forefathers  ; back 
to  the  time  of  Tacitus  and  Caesar  ; back  to  the  time  when  com- 
munal liberty  died  and  feudalism  was  established  in  Holland  ; 
back  to  the  days  of  Anglo-Saxon  liberty  in  England,  before  the 
dull  thud  of  the  “ poor  law”  sounded  the  death  knell  of  pure 
local  government.  It  is  by  looking  back  into  the  past  that  a 
remedy  can  be  found.  The  Anglo-Saxon  idea  of  freedom, 
after  preserving  our  liberties  through  centuries  of  darkness  and 
despotism,  acquired  fresh  vitality  in  the  colonies  of  New  Eng- 
land. To  these  little  republics,  Jefferson  says,  we  owe  the 
vigor  given  to  our  Revolution.  It  is  this  pure  self-government 
we  want  now.  The  self-government  of  to-day  hates  trouble 
and  loves  self-indulgence — hence  the  deplorable  condition  of 
our  cities.  Self-government,  it  has  been  well  observed,  is  a 
hard  task-master.  It  expects  every  man  to  do  his  duty,  not 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT— AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD.  195 

optionally  but  as  a public  obligation.  Have  those  who  com- 
plain bitterly  of  high  taxes  and  mismanagement  done  their 
duty?  They  have  paid  their  taxes.  Yes!  What  else? 
Folded  their  arms  and  done  nothing.  Without  disparaging  the 
efforts  of  the  distinguished  gentlemen  who  have  expended  so 
much  thought  on  this  question  of  reform  in  local  government, 
it  is  my  belief  that  it  can  never  be  thorough  until  our  citizens 
return  to  their  former  simplicity.  Let  general  orders  be  given 
out  for  reform  in  every  one  of  the  twenty  thousand  townships 
in  the  land,  as  to  the  sergeant  of  an  army,  and  soon  the  whole 
nation  will  be  thrown  into  energetic  action  in  the  same  direction. 
Then,  and  not  till  then,  the  force  becomes  absolutely  irresistible, 
and  we  are  on  the  right  road  to  true  and  lasting  Reform. 

Robert  P.  Porter. 


The  following  articles  are  published  from  the  office  of  the 
PRINCETON  REVIEW , 37  Park  Row,  New  York, 
and  can  be  obtained  from  all  Booksellers  and  Newsdealers  at  Five  Cents 
each  : 

1.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT:  AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD,  July, ’79 

ROBERT  P.  PORTER,  Esq.,  Chicago. 

2.  THE  PULPIT  AND  POPULAR  SKEPTICISM,  . . Mar.,  '79. 

Rev.  PHILLIPS  BROOKS,  D.D.,  Boston. 

3.  THE  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES  OF  SCIENCE,  . . . Nov.,  ’78. 

Principal  DAWSON,  F.R.S.,  D.C.L.,  McGill  University,  Montreal. 

4.  FORCE,  LAW,  AND  DESIGN May,  ’79. 

President  PORTER,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Yale  College. 

5.  AMERICAN  ART  : ITS  PROGRESS  AND  PROSPECTS,  May,  ’78. 

JOHN  F.  WEIR,  N.A.,  School  of  Fine  Arts,  Yale  College. 

6.  FINAL  CAUSE:  M.  JANET  AND  PROF.  NEWCOMB,  . Mar.,  ’79. 

President  McCOSH,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Princeton  College. 

7.  ENGLAND  AND  HER  COLONIES, May,  ’78. 

JAMES  ANTHONY  FROUDE,  D.C.L.,  London. 

8.  CLASSICS  AND  COLLEGES, July,  ’78. 

Prof.  B.  L.  GILDERSLEEVE,  LL.D.,  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

9.  THE  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  MOVEMENT,  ....  Sept.,  ’78. 

The  Right  Rev.  the  LORD  BISHOP  OF  GLOUCESTER  AND  BRISTOL. 

ic.  MAN’S  PLACE  IN  NATURE, Nov.,  ’78. 

Prof.  JOSEPH  LE  CONTE,  LL.D.,  University  of  California. 

11.  THE  AIM  OF  POETRY, Sept.,  ’78. 

Principal  SHAIRP,  D.C.L.,  University  of  St.  Andrews. 

12.  THE  IDEA  OF  CAUSE May,  ’79. 

Prof.  FRANCIS  BOWEN,  Harvard  College. 

13.  MUSIC  AND  WORSHIP July,  *79. 

President  POTTER,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Union  College. 

14.  NATIONAL  MORALITY, Nov.,  ’78. 

EDWARD  A.  FREEMAN,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  England. 

15.  THE  EUROPEAN  EQUILIBRIUM, Nov.,  ’78. 

THEODORE  D.  WOOLSEY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Ex-President  of  Yale  College. 


JANUARY,  1879. 

THE  CONSCIENCE  AS  A WITNESS  FOR  CHRIST.  President  W.  0.  KILLEN, 

Presbyterian  College,  Belfast. 

THE  MONETARY  CONFERENCES  OF  1867  AND  1878.  Prof.  FRANCIS  A.  WALKER, 
Ph.D;,  Yale  College. 

MORAL  GOVERNMENT.  Prof.  B.  F.  COCKER,  D.D.,  University  of  Michigan. 

POLITICAL  EFFECT  OF  THE  DECLINE  OF  FAITH  IN  CONTINENTAL 
EUROPE.  JOHN  W.  DRAPER,  LL.D.,  University  of  New  York. 

THE  DAY  AT  CAESAREA  PHILIPPI.  Prof.  BERNHARD  WEISS,  D.Th.,  Univ.  of  Berlin. 
THE  PULPIT  AND  SCEPTICAL  CULTURE.  STUART  ROBINSON,  D.D.,  Louisville. 
THE  SURRENDER  OF  FUGITIVES  FROM  JUSTICE.  Chief  Justice  COOLEY,  Michigan. 
THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  CAUSALITY.  J.  HUTCHISON  STIRLING,  LL.D.,  Edinburgh. 
CAUSES  OF  COMMERCIAL  DEPRESSION.  Prof.  THOROLD  ROGERS,  Univ.  of  Oxford. 


MARCH. 

RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE.  The  Late  Prof.  TAYLER  LEWIS,  LL.D.,  L.H.D.,  Union  Coll. 

THE  GENESIS  AND  MIGRATIONS  OF  PLANTS.  Principal  DAWSON,  F.R.S.,  D.C.L., 
Montreal. 

THE  PULPIT  AND  POPULAR  SKEPTICISM.  Rev.  PHILLIPS  BROOKS,  D.D.,  Boston. 

SENTIMENTAL  AND  PRACTICAL  POLITICS.  EDWARD  A.  FREEMAN,  D.C.L.,  LL.D., 
England. 

THIERS.  E.  DE  PRESSENS^,  formerly  Member  National  Assembly,  France. 

FINAL  CAUSE;  M.  JANET  AND  PROF.  NEWCOMB.  President  McCOSH,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Princeton  College. 

CONTINENTAL  PAINTING  AT  PARIS  IN  1878.  PHILIP  GILBERT  HAMERTON,  France. 
PREMILLENARIANISM.  Rev.  R.  M.  PATTERSON,  D.D.,  Philadelphia. 

THE  ISLANDS  OF  THE  PACIFIC.  Sir  JULIUS  VOGEL,  K.C.M.G.,  New  Zealand 


MAY. 

FORCE,  LAW  AND  DESIGN.  President  PORTER,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Yale  College. 
CONTINENTAL  PAINTING  AT  PARIS  IN  1878  PHILIP  GILBERT  HAMERTON,  France. 
UNIVERSITY  WORK  IN  AMERICA.  Prof.  B.  L.  GILDERSLEEVE,  Johns  Hopkins  University. 
SCIENCE  AND  A FUTURE  STATE.  BALFOUR  STEWART,  LL.D.,  F.R.S.,  Manchester. 
THE  FINAL  PHILOSOPHY.  Rev.  Dr.  FRANCIS  L.  PATTON,  Chicago. 

THE  CRITICAL  ESTIMATE  OF  MOSAISM.  Rev.  ALFRED  CAVE,  D.D.,  England. 

THE  IDEA  OF  CAUSE.  Prof.  FRANCIS  BOWEN,  Harvard  College. 

A PLEA  FOR  FREE  TRADE.  ARTHUR  ARNOLD,  London. 

THE  SUPREMACY  OF  CONSCIENCE  AND  OF  REVELATION.  LYMAN  H.  AT- 
WATER, D.D.,  LL.D.,  Princeton  College. 


The  last  volume  of  the  Review,  containing  twenty-seven  articles,  will  be  sent  to  any 
address,  postage  paid,  for  one  dollar. 

The  object  is  to  present,  to  the  largest  number  ot  intelligent  readers,  articles  entirely 
original,  of  the  highest  order  and  timeliness,  from  the  best  minds  of  this  country  and 
Europe,  treating  of  the  most  interesting  phases  of  thought  in  Theology,  Philosophy,  Politics. 
Science,  Literature,  and  Art. 

The  Review  is  published  bimonthly,  at  two  dollars  a year,  or  thirty-five  cents  a number ; 
postage  paid.  The  proprietor  respectfully  solicits  your  subscription,  and  desires  your 
influence  in  extending  its  circulation. 

Remittances  should  be  addressed  to  the 


PRINCETON  REVIEW, 


JULY,  1878. 

EXPLORATION  AS  VERIFYING  REVELATION.  Prof.  J.  L.  PORTER,  Assembly's 
College,  Belfast. 

GOD’S  INDISCRIMINATE  PROPOSALS  OF  MERCY.  Prest.  ROBERT  L.  DABNEY, 
Hampden-Sydney  Theol.  Seminary. 

CLASSICS  AND  COLLEGES.  Prof.*B.  L.  GILDERSLEEVE,  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

THE  MATERIALIST  REVIVAL.  Prof.  LIONEL  S.  BEALE,  King’s  College,  London. 

THE  SON  OF  MAN.  Prof.  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  University  of  Utrecht. 

RECENT  CHANGES  IN  JURISPRUDENCE  AND  APOLOGETICS.  FRANCIS 
WHARTON,  LL.D.,  Cambridge. 

METHODS  OF  HOME  EVANGELIZATION.  Prof.  WM.  G.  BLAIKIE,  Free  Church  College, 
Edinburgh. 

KANT  AND  HIS  FORTUNES  IN  ENGLAND.  Prof.  J.  p.  MAHAFFY,  Trinity  College, 
Dublin. 

CHRISTIANITY  UNDER  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE.  Prof.  ADOLF  HARNACK,  Univer- 
sity  of  Leipzig. 

THE  PROPHETS  AND  PROPHECY.  Prof.  WM.  HENRY  GREEN,  Princeton  Theol. 
Seminary. 

SEPTEMBER. 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  HUMAN  WILL.  HENRY  CALDERWOOD,  LL.D.,  University 
of  Edinburgh. 

ART  AS  AN  INTERPRETER  OF  HISTORY.  Prof.  HENRY  COPP^E,  Lehigh  University. 

TAXATION  OF  THE  LIQUOR  TRAFFIC.  Judge  ROBERT  C.  PITMAN,  Mass. 

SCIENCE  AND  A FUTURE  STATE.  BALFOUR  STEWART,  F.R.S.,  the  Owens  College, 
Manchester. 

J.  S.  MILL  AND  THE  DESTRUCTION  OF  THEISM.  President  DANIEL  S.  GREGORY, 
Lake  Forest  University. 

THE  AIM  OF  POETRY.  Principal  SHAIRP,  University  of  St.  Andrews. 

THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  CHANCE.  Prof.  JOHN  VENN,  University  of  Cambridge. 

FAITH.  MARK  HOPKINS,  Ex-President  of  Williams  College. 

THE  POLITICAL  OUTLOOK  IN  FRANCE.  Rev.  Dr.  ROBERT  L.  STANTON,  Cincinnati. 

THE  COST  OF  A LANDED  GENTRY.  ARTHUR  ARNOLD,  London. 

THE  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  MOVEMENT.  The  Rt.  Rev.  the  LORD  BISHOP  of  GLOUCESTER 
and  BRISTOL. 


NOVEMBER. 

NATIONAL  MORALITY.  EDWARD  A.  FREEMAN,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  England. 

THE  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES  OF  SCIENCE.  Principal  DAWSON,  McGill  University, 

Montreal. 

PHILOSOPHY  AS  SCIENTIA  SCIENTIARUM.  ROBERT  FLINT,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  University 
of  Edinburgh. 

THE  EUROPEAN  EQUILIBRIUM.  THEODORE  D.  WOOLSEY,  Ex-President  of  Yale  College. 
COPYRIGHTS  AND  PATENTS.  LEONE  LEVI,  F.S.A.,  F.S.S.,  Kings  College,  London. 
MAN’S  PLACE  IN  NATURE.  Prof.  JOSEPH  LE  CONTE,  University  of  California. 

DUTIES  OF  HIGHER  TOWARDS  LOWER  RACES.  Canon  GEORGE  RAWLINSON, 
University  of  Oxford. 

ECLIPSES  OF  THE  SUN.  SIMON  NEWCOMB,  LL.D.,  U.  S.  N.  Observatory,  Washington. 
THE  RECENT  SOLAR  ECLIPSE.  Professor  YOUNG,  Princeton  College. 

A CRITICISM  OF  THE  CRITICAL  PHILOSOPHY,  IN  REPLY  TO  PROFESSOR 
MAHAFFY.  President  McCOSH,  Princeton  College. 

PHYSIOLOGICAL  METAPHYSICS.  President  PORTER,  Yale  College. 


The  last  volume  of  the  Review  for  1878,  containing  thirty-two  articles,  will  be  forwarded 
naid.  for  one  dollar. 


